I agree with pretty much everything you've said except for"The comparison [with Apple] is inevitable [...]" I would addend "Shoddy journalism makes it inevitable." One of the points I'm making is that no one compares Mercedes-Benz with Tata's Nano. There's a reason; it makes no sense what-so-ever to make that comparison. They are competing in completely different markets. Apple is mentioned not because it's inevitable to make the comparison but because the mentioning Apple draws page views and it amounts to link-bait.

I have a lot of respect for Glyn Moody and in general appreciate the writing (please don't take this as a personal attack), but this post comes of as pandering to the Android/Anti-Apple audience. It's not clear, to me, exactly what is meant by the "real" tablet revolution. If it's tablets that cost ~$100 then one has to ask; when did you think the "real" computer revolution occurred? I would argue that it occured in the 60s well before prices reached the three-digit level. I lean towards the argument that Apple started the tablet revolution. By this I mean that tablets went largely unsold and un-appreciated before Apple released the iPad.

I also take issue with "[Apple] will never be able to offer a model that is competitive with minimalist tablets built around free software at the bottom [...]" I think if anyone could Apple *could* compete at the bottom, efficiencies of supply chain etc., but they've shown time and time again that they don't *want* to compete at the bottom. I think the opposite is true; most manufacturers would love to compete at the *top* but cannot do so.

Which brings me to another question; why are we making a comparison with Apple? It seems more appropriate to make a comparison with Motorla, Barnes and Nobles, Samsung or Amazon. Do we consider them to be competing at the lower end (note: not the bottom)? None of these manufacturers (yes Apple included) can compete at the sub $100 level.

"Everyone keeps talking about Youtube as if getting rid of it would be bad."
It would be bad. Youtube has become a way of sharing and spreading culture, information, humor etc. In a very general way it's like saying "getting rid of Television or Radio or the Internet would be bad."

"I don't agree."

Why not?

"IS Youtube a valid "new business model"?"

Yes, no? Why are you asking this question?

"So even your vaunted Youtube is on questionable basis!"

It's not mine; I don't own it and "Youtube is on questionable basis!" does not compute. I don't understand what you're saying.

"Youtube appears thus far to be operating on its seed capital. Great example, guys."

I know a few people who would go even further than *give* away their music for free. They'd probably crap their pants if they could *make* you listen to their music for free. These are musicians with small followings that are pretty awesome at what they do.

As a few others have pointed out by now the link you provide doesn't actually backup the claim you're making. It really is a diatribe attacking the contributors rather than any of the points made. In addition, the arguments made are rather obtuse and don't hold up to even shallow scrutiny and have been disproved several times in the past.